Audrey Newcomb
Sustainability Problems Film Annotation: “The Forest for the Trees” “The Forest for the Trees” is a documentary of the case of Earth First! Judy Bari v. FBI. The director of the film, Bernadine Mellis, is the daughter of Dennis Cunningham, a civil rights lawyer who serves as Judi’s lawyer. The film was released in 2005, but was filmed in 2002 during the proceeding of the court case, which occurred 12 years after the bombing of Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney.
The film featured the life of Judi Bari, a member of Earth First! who advocated to protect the redwoods forests in Northern California and for the rights of local loggers. Her position on logging was unique in that she recognized that pitting environmental activists against the local loggers only benefited large logging companies. National logging companies like Louisiana Pacific displace the work for the local loggers and devastate the forests. Judi Bari and a fellow Earth First! member were driving when a bomb exploded in their car and severely injured Judi. The police and FBI investigating the scene concluded that Judi was a member of a terrorist organization and was transporting the bomb when it accidentally exploded. Mellis explores this claim and features pictures that discredit it along with evidence of Judi’s history of peaceful and amicable relations with loggers.
Mellis’ documentary establishes that Judi has been framed by the FBI. Judi’s case is one example of a larger problem of the FBI considering dissenters, civil rights groups, and environmental groups to be responsible for carrying out “sinister activity.” The central argument of the film is that the First Amendment applies to all citizens whether or not they challenge the status quo. Challenging of the status quo is the heart of democracy and is responsible for discussion, debate, progress, and change. Out of debate arise the best solutions. For example, although Judi was concerned about the preservation of the trees she listened to the logic of the local loggers and came to denounce spiking of the trees. Conversations between Judi and the local loggers produced mutual respect because each side allowed the other to disagree and support their arguments. Immediately discounting a group people because they are challenging the status quo eliminates a debate that can result in progress. The FBI used their authority and power to eliminate the need to defend their actions. Even though Judi’s defense was sometimes disgruntled with the court system (the amount of time it took to bring the case to a hearing, the 6 week time limit of the court, comments by the judge, and lack of appropriate equipment to present with) I think the courts triumphed in this documentary. The trial forced the FBI to defend their actions and in doing so they ended up looking stupid. Most importantly, Judi won $4.4 million mostly for violation of First Amendment rights.
Creating a more sustainable world means criticizing how things are currently done. Sustainability studies involve identifying current practices that don’t make sense because they are harmful to our world. Being able to express dissent is essential to affecting change and solving sustainability problems. Not being able to express and discuss sustainability problems is a sustainability problem. Judi worked for “the right of all activists to work for social change.”
One of the most thought provoking parts of the film was Dennis Cunningham’s questioning of “who will police the police.” Although this is an old political question I thought it was one of the most compelling parts of the film because it is hard to visualize how to ensure that the police are properly and fairly policing. As we discussed in class, allowing for fair policing requires accepting discussion and dissent among the police and citizens. I would like to consider police and citizens as partners in maintaining a safe society. Unfortunately, the power that policing organizations yield can create an unequal partnership. When Judi received threatening letters and reported them to the police they did not even investigate who was threatening her!
At the same time, Judi’s trial represented a step towards creating an equal partnership between police and citizens. Despite this victory I am not convinced that there really exists an equal partnership between police and citizens. I still feel that the police can have great liberty to squash dissenters and inappropriately use their power.
This film makes me consider the importance of privacy and civil liberties. It makes me consider the increased surveillance and power that the FBI and the National Security Agency have gained in our anti-terror society. Alicia Littletree mentions in a meeting that she is afraid that the jury will be biased towards the FBI because our post 9-11 society has given increased authority to the police. Obviously the jury’s ruling did not support this theory and I don’t think that her theory holds true for the general population either. The USA Patriot Act, the “NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program,” and “pervasive video surveillance,” and the “‘Threat and Local Observation Notice’ (TALON database)” were all created by a few people with power, they were not created by any majority opinion (ACLU).
This film could appeal to anybody that has empathy for other citizens, and if someone is not empathetic then they would have to be a minority group in order to seriously consider many of the films claims. This film asks viewers to contemplate the positive effects that “dissenters” and those with new opinions can have on society. This film could change the way viewers think about environmentalism. Judi did such a good job of linking environmental causes to local worker rights that viewers are able to realize that environmental causes are more involved than preserving a tree for the sake of preserving one tree.
“The Forest for the Trees” asks viewers to reconsider why and how society protects itself against new ideas and “dissenters.” The problem is that viewers aren’t left with any specific action they can take to improve the system that framed Judi.
To enhance this film’s educational value there could have been greater focus on implications of cutting down whole forests at such a past pace (however the national corporations destroyed the forests) and the problems local communities faces as local logging work was displaced by the national companies.
Sustainability Problems
Film Annotation: “The Forest for the Trees”
“The Forest for the Trees” is a documentary of the case of Earth First! Judy Bari v. FBI. The director of the film, Bernadine Mellis, is the daughter of Dennis Cunningham, a civil rights lawyer who serves as Judi’s lawyer. The film was released in 2005, but was filmed in 2002 during the proceeding of the court case, which occurred 12 years after the bombing of Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney.
The film featured the life of Judi Bari, a member of Earth First! who advocated to protect the redwoods forests in Northern California and for the rights of local loggers. Her position on logging was unique in that she recognized that pitting environmental activists against the local loggers only benefited large logging companies. National logging companies like Louisiana Pacific displace the work for the local loggers and devastate the forests. Judi Bari and a fellow Earth First! member were driving when a bomb exploded in their car and severely injured Judi. The police and FBI investigating the scene concluded that Judi was a member of a terrorist organization and was transporting the bomb when it accidentally exploded. Mellis explores this claim and features pictures that discredit it along with evidence of Judi’s history of peaceful and amicable relations with loggers.
Mellis’ documentary establishes that Judi has been framed by the FBI. Judi’s case is one example of a larger problem of the FBI considering dissenters, civil rights groups, and environmental groups to be responsible for carrying out “sinister activity.” The central argument of the film is that the First Amendment applies to all citizens whether or not they challenge the status quo. Challenging of the status quo is the heart of democracy and is responsible for discussion, debate, progress, and change. Out of debate arise the best solutions. For example, although Judi was concerned about the preservation of the trees she listened to the logic of the local loggers and came to denounce spiking of the trees. Conversations between Judi and the local loggers produced mutual respect because each side allowed the other to disagree and support their arguments. Immediately discounting a group people because they are challenging the status quo eliminates a debate that can result in progress. The FBI used their authority and power to eliminate the need to defend their actions. Even though Judi’s defense was sometimes disgruntled with the court system (the amount of time it took to bring the case to a hearing, the 6 week time limit of the court, comments by the judge, and lack of appropriate equipment to present with) I think the courts triumphed in this documentary. The trial forced the FBI to defend their actions and in doing so they ended up looking stupid. Most importantly, Judi won $4.4 million mostly for violation of First Amendment rights.
Creating a more sustainable world means criticizing how things are currently done. Sustainability studies involve identifying current practices that don’t make sense because they are harmful to our world. Being able to express dissent is essential to affecting change and solving sustainability problems. Not being able to express and discuss sustainability problems is a sustainability problem. Judi worked for “the right of all activists to work for social change.”
One of the most thought provoking parts of the film was Dennis Cunningham’s questioning of “who will police the police.” Although this is an old political question I thought it was one of the most compelling parts of the film because it is hard to visualize how to ensure that the police are properly and fairly policing. As we discussed in class, allowing for fair policing requires accepting discussion and dissent among the police and citizens. I would like to consider police and citizens as partners in maintaining a safe society. Unfortunately, the power that policing organizations yield can create an unequal partnership. When Judi received threatening letters and reported them to the police they did not even investigate who was threatening her!
At the same time, Judi’s trial represented a step towards creating an equal partnership between police and citizens. Despite this victory I am not convinced that there really exists an equal partnership between police and citizens. I still feel that the police can have great liberty to squash dissenters and inappropriately use their power.
This film makes me consider the importance of privacy and civil liberties. It makes me consider the increased surveillance and power that the FBI and the National Security Agency have gained in our anti-terror society. Alicia Littletree mentions in a meeting that she is afraid that the jury will be biased towards the FBI because our post 9-11 society has given increased authority to the police. Obviously the jury’s ruling did not support this theory and I don’t think that her theory holds true for the general population either. The USA Patriot Act, the “NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program,” and “pervasive video surveillance,” and the “‘Threat and Local Observation Notice’ (TALON database)” were all created by a few people with power, they were not created by any majority opinion (ACLU).
This film could appeal to anybody that has empathy for other citizens, and if someone is not empathetic then they would have to be a minority group in order to seriously consider many of the films claims. This film asks viewers to contemplate the positive effects that “dissenters” and those with new opinions can have on society. This film could change the way viewers think about environmentalism. Judi did such a good job of linking environmental causes to local worker rights that viewers are able to realize that environmental causes are more involved than preserving a tree for the sake of preserving one tree.
“The Forest for the Trees” asks viewers to reconsider why and how society protects itself against new ideas and “dissenters.” The problem is that viewers aren’t left with any specific action they can take to improve the system that framed Judi.
To enhance this film’s educational value there could have been greater focus on implications of cutting down whole forests at such a past pace (however the national corporations destroyed the forests) and the problems local communities faces as local logging work was displaced by the national companies.
References:
"America's Surveillance Society." American Civil Liberties Union, n.d. Web. 14 Mar 2010. <http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file381_37802.pdf>.